Padarthy Ratnam And Company vs Industrial Tribunal And Ors. on 19 March, 1958
I have endeavoured to state the rule and one of its limitations, as recognized by the Supreme
Court; other limitations too have been evolved, but are not germane to the present purpose. I have adverted to this limitation as to nexus, not because its factual existence was the subject of controversy before me but because, in my opinion, once the
nexus is established, the condition of antecedent membership of the Union insisted upon so much by the learned counsel, whatever may be said of other conditions which may be thought of, recedes to the background, and cannot be regarded as of the subs- tance of the rule. It also seems to me, that the condition itself has no direct relation to the object of the Act or to the principle of the rule of transformation mentioned above, nor has the learned counsel for the petitioner succeeded in establishing any. All that he relied was on Padarthy Ratnam and Co. v. Industrial Tribunal, Guntur, (1958) 2 Lab LJ 290, decided by a single Judge of Andhra Pradesh High Court, as the only case laying down the proposition. It is therefore necessary to examine this case.